[quote]She was eventually tried by jury at the Old Bailey and subsequently found guilty of contravening section 4 of the Witchcraft Act of 1735.[/quote]
Oh for god's sake.
[quote]In 2008, the Scottish Parliament rejected a petition to pardon her.[/quote]
Cretins.

Quote:She was eventually tried by jury at the Old Bailey and subsequently found guilty of contravening section 4 of the Witchcraft Act of 1735.

Just read up on the witchcraft act on Wikipedia:
[quote]The Witchcraft Act of 1735 (9 Geo. 2 c. 5) marked a complete reversal in attitudes. Penalties for the practice of witchcraft as traditionally constituted, which by that time was considered by many influential figures to be an impossible crime, were replaced by penalties for the pretence of witchcraft.[b] A person who claimed [/b]to have the power to call up spirits, or foretell the future, or cast spells, or discover the whereabouts of stolen goods, was to be punished as a vagrant and a con artist, subject to fines and imprisonment. [/quote]
Don't sound that unreasonable to me - we could use it today to lock up Derek Accorah, psychic Sally and all those other frauds who pray on the bereaved.

Just read up on the witchcraft act on Wikipedia:

Quote:The Witchcraft Act of 1735 (9 Geo. 2 c. 5) marked a complete reversal in attitudes. Penalties for the practice of witchcraft as traditionally constituted, which by that time was considered by many influential figures to be an impossible crime, were replaced by penalties for the pretence of witchcraft. A person who claimed to have the power to call up spirits, or foretell the future, or cast spells, or discover the whereabouts of stolen goods, was to be punished as a vagrant and a con artist, subject to fines and imprisonment.

Don't sound that unreasonable to me - we could use it today to lock up Derek Accorah, psychic Sally and all those other frauds who pray on the bereaved.

Reading further, I see our old chum Churchill (the man who cost hundred and thousands of lives) was involved, but apparently could not do anything:(
Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He could sanction sending men and women to their deaths, but could not stop one poor soul from being prosecuted

Reading further, I see our old chum Churchill (the man who cost hundred and thousands of lives) was involved, but apparently could not do anything

Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He could sanction sending men and women to their deaths, but could not stop one poor soul from being prosecuted

[quote]She was eventually tried by jury at the Old Bailey and subsequently found guilty of contravening section 4 of the Witchcraft Act of 1735.
Oh for god's sake.
In 2008, the Scottish Parliament rejected a petition to pardon her.
Cretins.[/quote]
Be fair now, they were only following the Westminster lead. :P
[i]The call to pardon Mrs Duncan was put before Holyrood's petitions committee.
The petition was rejected unanimously by the committee and follows the same decision by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who refused a similar request last year. [/i][b][/b]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7278899.stm

Quote:She was eventually tried by jury at the Old Bailey and subsequently found guilty of contravening section 4 of the Witchcraft Act of 1735.

Oh for god's sake.

In 2008, the Scottish Parliament rejected a petition to pardon her.

Cretins.

Be fair now, they were only following the Westminster lead.

The call to pardon Mrs Duncan was put before Holyrood's petitions committee.

The petition was rejected unanimously by the committee and follows the same decision by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who refused a similar request last year.

[quote][i]Reading further, I see our old chum Churchill (the man who cost hundred and thousands of lives) was involved, but apparently could not do anything:(
Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He could sanction sending men and women to their deaths, but could not stop one poor soul from being prosecuted[/i][/quote]
Blimey Adrian.
You don't think much of Churchill!
Considering that the country was at war at the time, I'm not sure what else he might have done.

Quote:Reading further, I see our old chum Churchill (the man who cost hundred and thousands of lives) was involved, but apparently could not do anything

Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He could sanction sending men and women to their deaths, but could not stop one poor soul from being prosecuted

Blimey Adrian.

You don't think much of Churchill!

Considering that the country was at war at the time, I'm not sure what else he might have done.

[quote]The petition was rejected unanimously by the committee and follows the same decision by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who refused a similar request last year.[/quote]
Say's it all really........I wouldn't let most politicians loose with the remote control for my television, let alone run the country!.....I went to school with a reasonably well known politician and he's still a great big clot even now!.........Almost as big as me, but at least I didn't become a politician ;)
Come the revolution I'm having the whole lot put against the wall and shot......And then I'll let the apes take charge ;)
Ade

Quote:The petition was rejected unanimously by the committee and follows the same decision by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who refused a similar request last year.

Say's it all really........I wouldn't let most politicians loose with the remote control for my television, let alone run the country!.....I went to school with a reasonably well known politician and he's still a great big clot even now!.........Almost as big as me, but at least I didn't become a politician

Come the revolution I'm having the whole lot put against the wall and shot......And then I'll let the apes take charge

Firstly I dont really know anywhere near enough about this case to have a sensible opinion and I strongly suspect I am kept company by the rest of this site in this respect but that shouldn't stop us wringing our hands in disbelief and anger or voicing an opinion based on nothing whatsoever. But note that I am aware my opinion is not based on fact one tiny bit and just my own common sense (for what it is).
I don't for one second think anyone responsible for prosecuting her believed any witchcraft was at work here and if anyone here thinks they did then imo you are missing the situation completely. I also don't believe in any sort of 'paranormal' powers in their normally accepted forms such as, mind reading, speaking to the dead, remote viewing etc etc so what I think we have here is a woman who somehow managed to get hold of some sensitive information and is divulging it as part of her stage show. I think the war effort at this time was seen to have been threatened by this loose lipped fraudster (fraudster being a personal opinion about her claimed powers) and with little else to use/or believing it was a strategically preferable option they turned to archaic laws to silence her so she didn't threaten the safety of our brave soldiers or damage the war effort.
Does she deserve pardoning for divulging sensitive and potentially damaging information during wartime - no probably not but that wasn't what she was charged with. She was probably prosecuted for witchcraft in a strange quirk of judicial action because either there was no law specifically to stop her spreading the secrets in this manner or the witchcraft charge avoided the need to highlight the sensitive content as the focal point of the case (thus avoiding highlighting the actual sensitive material further) and stopped her talking about the information as it would only have been spoken in public during a seance or performance, so to invoke some kind of witchcraft law stops the performances.
Does she deserve pardoning for being prosecuted for witchcraft - yes, certainly, because it doesn't exist.
All in all this seems to have been big news because of the withcraft charges but in reality it is probably a far more normal situation (rather than paranormal) and it was just an expeditious way to deal with a spiritualist spreading war secrets in her act. It is nothing about being in, or coming out of the dark ages ... I dont think anyone felt anyone was a witch .. and it makes a good headline in this modern day when we love a good paranormal story about witchcraft, government wrongdoings and miscarriages of justice - this story rolls them all into one. Am I going to lose one minute of sleep over this story or whether a pardon is given ... nope.

Firstly I dont really know anywhere near enough about this case to have a sensible opinion and I strongly suspect I am kept company by the rest of this site in this respect but that shouldn't stop us wringing our hands in disbelief and anger or voicing an opinion based on nothing whatsoever. But note that I am aware my opinion is not based on fact one tiny bit and just my own common sense (for what it is).

I don't for one second think anyone responsible for prosecuting her believed any witchcraft was at work here and if anyone here thinks they did then imo you are missing the situation completely. I also don't believe in any sort of 'paranormal' powers in their normally accepted forms such as, mind reading, speaking to the dead, remote viewing etc etc so what I think we have here is a woman who somehow managed to get hold of some sensitive information and is divulging it as part of her stage show. I think the war effort at this time was seen to have been threatened by this loose lipped fraudster (fraudster being a personal opinion about her claimed powers) and with little else to use/or believing it was a strategically preferable option they turned to archaic laws to silence her so she didn't threaten the safety of our brave soldiers or damage the war effort.

Does she deserve pardoning for divulging sensitive and potentially damaging information during wartime - no probably not but that wasn't what she was charged with. She was probably prosecuted for witchcraft in a strange quirk of judicial action because either there was no law specifically to stop her spreading the secrets in this manner or the witchcraft charge avoided the need to highlight the sensitive content as the focal point of the case (thus avoiding highlighting the actual sensitive material further) and stopped her talking about the information as it would only have been spoken in public during a seance or performance, so to invoke some kind of witchcraft law stops the performances.

Does she deserve pardoning for being prosecuted for witchcraft - yes, certainly, because it doesn't exist.

All in all this seems to have been big news because of the withcraft charges but in reality it is probably a far more normal situation (rather than paranormal) and it was just an expeditious way to deal with a spiritualist spreading war secrets in her act. It is nothing about being in, or coming out of the dark ages ... I dont think anyone felt anyone was a witch .. and it makes a good headline in this modern day when we love a good paranormal story about witchcraft, government wrongdoings and miscarriages of justice - this story rolls them all into one. Am I going to lose one minute of sleep over this story or whether a pardon is given ... nope.

[quote]
Don't sound that unreasonable to me - we could use it today to lock up Derek Accorah, psychic Sally and all those other frauds who pray on the bereaved.[/quote]
Yes, good call .... Acorah and Sally have obtained more money by deception than the sum of all the MPs' dodgy expenses claims ;o) ('allegedly' - my solicitor prompts me to add)

Quote:

Don't sound that unreasonable to me - we could use it today to lock up Derek Accorah, psychic Sally and all those other frauds who pray on the bereaved.

Yes, good call .... Acorah and Sally have obtained more money by deception than the sum of all the MPs' dodgy expenses claims ;o) ('allegedly' - my solicitor prompts me to add)